get_pricesGet current TRON Energy and Bandwidth minimum prices for all duration tiers. Returns price per unit in SUN for each available duration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resourceType | No | Filter by resource type (default: all) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (price per unit in SUN) and implies a read-only operation by using 'Get'. However, it omits details about potential response size, authentication requirements, or real-time vs. delayed data, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds meaningful detail. No fluff or redundancy in the text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description explains both the purpose and the return format. It does not mention default behavior for resourceType, but that is covered in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter resourceType, including its enum values and default behavior. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves current TRON Energy and Bandwidth minimum prices across all duration tiers, specifying the output unit (SUN). The verb 'Get' and specific resources distinguish it from sibling tools like get_market_overview or estimate_cost.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its role among related tools like get_market_overview or get_available_resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: get_prices and get_market_overview both provide pricing info, and get_available_resources, get_pool_delegations, and get_onchain_status all relate to resource status. Descriptions clarify these distinctions adequately.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_balance, register_pool, configure_auto_selling). Minor inconsistency: 'broadcast_signed_permission_tx' uses the abbreviation 'tx' while 'broadcast_transaction' uses the full word 'transaction'.
27 tools is excessive for a server with this scope, exceeding the 25-tool threshold. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_prices and get_market_overview, or the various resource-status getters). The high count makes the tool surface harder to navigate.
The server covers the core domain well: registration, balance management, pool registration and configuration, energy purchase, order tracking, swap, and voting. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for configuring auto actions (stake/claim) or cancelling orders, but these do not severely hinder core workflows.